Any Christians believe in macroevolution?

[Cabal]

Try son-in-law here.

This is definitely a more entertaining example of "literalism" than "very good"="perfect".

 

[AV1611VET]

So who exactly did God impregnate to conceive Adam?

No one, obviously.

Adam is referred to as the son of God, because he was directly-created by Him.

Same for the angels, they are a direct-creation of God, therefore:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

[nebulaJP]

I don't care what the Bible is to you. By all means, remain pantheist if you want. However, doesn't pantheism require that the universe has a consciousness? After all, if the universe is god, doesn't that mean that the universe is conscious? You deny that.

As it says in my profile I'm a Naturalistic Pantheist. I don't believe in a conscious universe.

How does that follow? It appears that you are using circular reasoning here: presuming the miracles are fiction, then using the fiction of the miracles to say the Biblical accounts of miracles is fiction.

The same way that it follows that Greek/Roman/Norse mythologies or fairy tales (such as Jack and Beanstalk) relating fantastic, supernatural events are not literally true.

Actually, I do believe that God created the universe. I simply believe God did so by the processes discovered by science. #2 is not a "miracle", since the stories do not invoke miracle to have the Flood. However, there is evidence that the Flood was not world-wide. There is evidence that a severe local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley inspired the Unt-napushtim story in the Epic of Gilgamesh (the story from which the Flood story was derived).

The flood story, as it is described in the Bible, is totally a miracle. There is no way that a worldwide flood in which "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." (Gen 7:19) and in which God "blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark." (Gen 7:23) could have happened as described in the Bible without a miracle. I agree with you about the possible origin of the real story.

There is considerable evidence contradicting that the Babel story is the origin of language.

Basically, I use evidence from God's Creation to decide whether a particular miracle did not happen. From #4 on out, such evidence does not exist except for #33 and #34.

Shouldn't our common sense be entered as "evidence from God's Creation"?

Otherwise, wearing my scientist hat, I have no means of saying any of the rest didn't happen.

I may be skeptical of a couple, i.e. #24 but that is not due to science.

But you don't have any means of saying any of the rest did happen either. The miracles were written down in a book, the first story of which you don't believe literally happened as described. Why would the existence of the Bible rationally be a "means" of believing that any of it literally happened?

 

[nebulaJP]

Not really. God is not the father of Adam, is He?

Luke 3:38
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

From dictionary.com:

son: a male child or person in relation to his parents.

So who exactly did God impregnate to conceive Adam?

I'm not the one who stated that God is Adam's father. The Bible did. Miraculously in Adam's case, a woman's impregnation apparently wasn't needed.

 

[Jazer]

No one, obviously.

Adam is referred to as the son of God, because he was directly-created by Him.

It was the breath of God that made him different.
Just like we are born again of the Spirit and that is what makes us different.

The Law of Entropy requires an outside force.

05397 // hmvn // n@shamah // nesh-aw-maw' //

from 05395 ; TWOT - 1433a; n f

AV - breath 17, blast 3, spirit 2, inspiration 1, souls 1; 24

1) breath, spirit
1a) breath (of God)
1b) breath (of man)
1c) every breathing thing
1d) spirit (of man)

 

[lucaspa]

Try son-in-law here.

The link did not work, if it was a link. There is no "son-in-law" at work in the genealogies. Luke and Matthew name different fathers for Joseph. Neither mentions Mary in the genealogies.

I find it interesting that, in my entire post, this is the only thing you comment on. I asked you several questions, AV. Why did you duck them?

 

[lucaspa]

No one, obviously.

Adam is referred to as the son of God, because he was directly-created by Him.

Let me refresh your memory of where the conversation was:
"Luke 3:38
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. "

In that entire list, we have literal sons: products of sexual relations and conception. Now, that came about because we were discussing Aeneas. He was the result of sexual relations and conception of Apollo and a human female. The claim by nebulaJP was that that Luke's idea that Adam is the "son of God" was the same as Aeneas. You are agreeing with me that it is not.

Same for the angels, they are a direct-creation of God, therefore:

It's not clear that Job 38:7 is talking about angels. In Job 38:7, the phrase is ben elohim. That would be translated as "son of God". However, in Genesis 6:2 we also encounter the phrase "sons of God", but here the word is "elohim" alone. So, we have different Hebrew words translated as "sons of God".

However, it is interesting to see you get more and more away from a literal reading of the Bible. You are agreeing that, literally, Adam is not a son of God as nebulaJP is using the term.

 

[Jazer]

I'm not the one who stated that God is Adam's father. The Bible did. Miraculously in Adam's case, a woman's impregnation apparently wasn't needed.

We become a son of God through the work of the Spirit of God in us. Adam was a real historical person and according to Science he had parents. The Hebrew people today are decended from Science Out of Africa Adam and Eve just like everyone else. AT least that is what the research at the University of Jerusalem shows. J1 & J2 haplogroup: The J1 are the Arabs, the decendants of Abraham through the Egyptian maid Hagar. J2 would be the decendants of Sarah and Abraham.

This phylogenetic tree of haplogroup subclades is based on the YCC 2008 tree and subsequent published research.

• J1 (L255, L321, M267) Typical of populations of the Arabian peninsula, Dagestan, Mesopotamia, the Levant and Semitic-speaking populations of North Africa and Northeast Africa, with a moderate distribution throughout Western Asia'
  • J1* -
  • J1a (M62) Found at a low frequency in Britain
  • J1b (M365.1)
  • J1c (L136)
    • J1c1 (M390) - formerly J1c
    • J1c2 (P56) - formerly J1d
    • J1c3 (P58/PAGES00008) - formerly J1e
      • J1c3* -
      • J1c3a (M367.1, M368.1) - formerly J1e1
      • J1c3b (M369) - formerly J1e2
      • J1c3c (L92, L93)
      • J1c3d (L147.1)
        • J1c3d* -
        • J1c3d1 (L174.1)
        • J1c3d2 (L222.2)
          • J1c3d2* -
            • J1c3d2a (L65.2/S159.2)

Below are the subclades of Haplogroup J with their defining mutations, according to the ISOGG tree (as of April 2009). Note that the descent-based identifiers may be subject to change, as new SNPs are discovered that augment and clarify the tree.

• J2 (M172) Typical of populations of the Near East, Southeast Europe, Southwest Asia and the Caucasus, with a moderate distribution through much of Central Asia, South Asia, and North Africa
  • J2*
  • J2a (M410)
    • J2a* Found in Georgia (Svan)DYS 434=7; Found in North Ossetia DYS 438=7 ;
    • J2a1 (not currently in use by ISOGG)
    • J2a2 (M340)
    • J2a3 (P279)
    • J2a4 (DYS413≤18, L26/S57, L27)
      • J2a4*
      • J2a4a (M47, M322) Found with low frequency in Georgia,[16] southern Iran,[36]Qatar,[37]Saudi Arabia,[27]Syria,[7]Tunisia,[38]Turkey,[7][14] the UAE,[37] and Central Asia/Siberia[39]
      • J2a4b (M67) formerly J2f
        • J2a4b* Highest frequencies associated with Nakh peoples. Found at very high (majority) frequencies among Ingush in Malgobek (87.4%), Chechens in Dagestan (58%), Chechens in Chechnya (56.8%) and Chechens in Malgobek, Ingushetia (50.9%).[5] In the Caucasus, it is found at significant frequencies among Georgians (13.3%)[1], Iron Ossetes (11.3%), South Caucasian Balkars (6.3%)[1], Digor Ossetes (5.5%), Abkhaz (6.9%), Cherkess (5.6%). [5] It is also found at notable frequencies in the Meditteranean and Middle East, including Cretans (10.2%), North-central Italians (9.6%), Southern Italians (4.2%; only 0.8% among N. Italians), Anatolian Turks (2.7-5.4%), Greeks (4-4.3%), Albanians (3.6%), Ashkenazi Jews (4.9%), Sephardis (2.4%), Catalans (3.9%), Andalusians (3.2%), Calabrians (3.3%), Albanian Calabrians (8.9%). [7][1]
        • J2a4b1 (M92, M260)
          • J2a4b1*
          • J2a4b1a (M327)
        • J2a4b2 (M163, M166)
      • J2a4c (M68)
      • J2a4d (M319) Found with low to moderate frequency in CretanGreeks,[17][31]Iraqi Jews,[19] and Moroccan Jews[19]
      • J2a4e (M339)
      • J2a4f (M419)
      • J2a4g (P81)
      • J2a4h (L24)
        • J2a4h*
        • J2a4h1 (L25)
          • J2a4h1*
          • J2a4h1a (DYS445≤7)
            • J2a4h1a*
            • J2a4h1a1 (L70)
              • J2a4h1a1*
              • J2a4h1a1a (M137)
              • J2a4h1a1b (M289) (location under DYS445≤7 uncertain)
              • J2a4h1a1c (M318)
        • J2a4h2 (M158) (location under L24 uncertain) Found with low frequency in Turkey,[14]South Asia,[20][39] and Indochina[39]
  • J2b (M12, M102, M221, M314)
    • J2b*
    • J2b1 (M205)
    • J2b2 (M241)
      • J2b2*
      • J2b2a (M99)
      • J2b2b (M280)
      • J2b2c (M321)
      • J2b2d (P84)
      • J2b2e (DYS455≤9)

 

[lucaspa]

It was the breath of God that made him different.
Just like we are born again of the Spirit and that is what makes us different.

The Law of Entropy requires an outside force.

Where did the Law of Entropy come from when you were talking about "breath of God"?

 

[AV1611VET]

The link did not work, if it was a link.

It's not a link; I color-coded a portion of your response and mine, so you could see what my comment was referencing.

I find it interesting that, in my entire post, this is the only thing you comment on. I asked you several questions, AV. Why did you duck them?

I did not address the rest of your post, because I assumed it stemmed from your error at the beginning of it.

I just assumed that, if I fixed your error, the rest of your post would be rendered nebulous.

 

[lucaspa]

Luke 3:38
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

From dictionary.com:

son: a male child or person in relation to his parents.

You are a bit stingy about the defintion from dictionary.com:
"1. a male child or person in relation to his parents.
2. a male child or person adopted as a son; a person in the legal position of a son.
3. any male descendant: "

Now, "in relation to his parents" doesn't mean "formed from dust" does it? Our relation to our parents is that father and mother had sex and she conceived. This is what happened with Apollo and a human female. It's also what happened everywhere else in Matthew's genealogy.

In Jesus' case, where Jesus is son of God, we do have 2 parents and conception, don't we?

Now, let's try Merriam-Webster:
"1
a : a human male offspring especially of human beings
b : a male adopted child
c : a human male descendant "

That's pretty close to dictionary.com, and Adam isn't any of these, is he?

I'm not the one who stated that God is Adam's father. The Bible did. Miraculously in Adam's case, a woman's impregnation apparently wasn't needed.

In all fairness, it is Matthew, isn't it? Matthew stated it in his genealogy of Jesus.

However, what is the genetic relationship of Adam and God? Is Adam God's "offspring"? Not really. Is he adopted by God? Possibly, but that is not stated. Is Adam a "descendant" of God? Nope. Again, no genetic connection. Adam is a being formed from dust by God.

So why are you trying to take Matthew's poetic phrasing and trying to turn Adam into a literal son?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not clear that Job 38:7 is talking about angels. In Job 38:7, the phrase is ben elohim. That would be translated as "son of God". However, in Genesis 6:2 we also encounter the phrase "sons of God", but here the word is "elohim" alone. So, we have different Hebrew words translated as "sons of God".

Then skip the tongues and look at it from a Hebrew-poetry stance, and that should clarify it.

It is what is called complimentary Hebrew poetry.

In poetry, you can have compliments of sound (rhyme) and compliments of time (rhythm); but in Hebrew poetry, you have compliments of ideas.

These compliment each other in one of three major ways:

1. complimentary
2. contrastive
3. [can't remember the third w/o looking it up, and right now I'm too lazy to -- it's called constructive, I think]

Anyway, my point is, in this passage, an idea is stated, then restated using different terminology -- (yes, the KJV has a built-in dictionary).

So, to put this together:

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Notice that the morning stars (angels) are the sons of God.

However, it is interesting to see you get more and more away from a literal reading of the Bible.

No, I don't.

As, I believe, J. Dwight Pentecost [or whomever] says: The Bible is literal, but It contains poetry; not the other way around.

You are agreeing that, literally, Adam is not a son of God as nebulaJP is using the term.

I am not addressing JP's points -- he can fend for himself; and frankly, I think he's doing a good job.

 

[lucaspa]

As it says in my profile I'm a Naturalistic Pantheist. I don't believe in a conscious universe.

So the universe is God, but God isn't a conscious being? Then why have God at all? What's the difference between a "naturalistic pantheist" and an atheist?

The same way that it follows that Greek/Roman/Norse mythologies or fairy tales (such as Jack and Beanstalk) relating fantastic, supernatural events are not literally true.

You are not denying using circular logic with the Biblical miracles. Now instead you have added an argument from analogy. The question becomes: is your analogy valid? I argue "no". For starters, the story of Jack and Beanstalk and other "fairy tales" were always stated to be fiction. No one ever proposed that they actually happened.

Now to the Greek/Roman/Norse pantheons. These were discarded because essential statements on the existence of these deities were falsified. For instance, the Greek gods were claimed to live on Mt. Olympus. Well, guess what happened when people climbed Olympus? An essential claim to Thor's existence was that he caused thunder with his hammer. Yeah, we know what happened to that one. When the deities got falsified, then the stories of supernatural events were regarded as fiction. You are trying to do this the other way around: because there were stories of the supernatural, then we decided the deities didn't exist. Sorry, but it didn't happen that way, so your argument from analogy fails.

The flood story, as it is described in the Bible, is totally a miracle. There is no way that a worldwide flood in which "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." (Gen 7:19) and in which God "blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark." (Gen 7:23) could have happened as described in the Bible without a miracle.

In the flood stories, the flood itself is not a miracle. There is no miraculous source for the water or even miraculous release. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

Remember that Babylonian cosmology? All God does is release the waters below the earth and open the windows in the firmament to let down the waters stored above the firmament. There is enough stored water there to cover the earth. No miracle. Just nature happening. The deaths are not miracle either, but naturalistic drowning.

Shouldn't our common sense be entered as "evidence from God's Creation"?

Hmmm. If that is the case, then we have to discard much of science, don't we? Because much of what we have learned about the universe violates common sense. In particular, quantum mechanics gets trashed.

So no. What you are calling "common sense" is simply your beliefs. You don't believe the accounts are true, but you don't have evidence. So you are trying to trick out your beliefs as "common sense".

But you don't have any means of saying any of the rest did happen either. The miracles were written down in a book, the first story of which you don't believe literally happened as described. Why would the existence of the Bible rationally be a "means" of believing that any of it literally happened?

First, the Bible is not a book. It is a compilation of over 60 books.
Second, Genesis is not first. Exodus is first. Genesis, particularly Genesis 1, came about 1,000 years later. Nor was Genesis 1 ever intended to be taken literally. Neither was Genesis 2. Israel knew Yahweh as creator of Israel (from "nothing") long before they conceived of Yahweh as creator of the universe. So nowhere is the existence of Yahweh tied to a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. The existence of Yahweh was never tied to a literal Genesis 1-3.
Third, claims are separate. I don't hold to the "it's all true or none of it is true" idea. We never use that criteria anywhere. For instance, the evolution of flightless beetles did not happen as Darwin describes in Origin of Species. Would you have us throw out the whole book because of that? I see in the science news today that some Chinese scientists are proposing, based on morphological data, that Archeopteryx is not a member of Class Aves (not a bird). Do I throw out all of evolution because of that? Or even throw out dino to bird evolution? NO! So the accounts of God's interventions in history, including miracles, are separate from the theological stories about creation in Genesis 1-3.
Fourth, the accounts of encounters with God written in the Bible correlate with the personal experience of God by myself and tens of millions of others over the millenia.

 

[lucaspa]

So, to put this together:

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Notice that the morning stars (angels) are the sons of God.

Sorry, but you are forgetting that "and". The "and" designates morning stars and sons of God as separate things. You see, the "sang together" and "shouted for joy" happen at the same time. It's not like the "morning stars" sing, then the sons of God shout for joy. That would be a different sentence construction. What's more, that Hebrew word is not used for "angels" anywhere, but for stars in the sky. For instance, you can find it in Genesis 1:6, Genesis 15:5, 22:17, 26:4, even in Job, in 3:9, 9:7, 22:12, and 25:5 uses the same word for the stars in the sky. Now you want to claim that the author suddenly, with no warning, uses that word to mean "angels"? Particularly when "stars in the sky" works perfectly well as the meaning in 38:7?

All in all, AV, this was a really poor way to convince me that "sons of God" means angels. There were much better arguments you could have used.

What's more, it is really irrelevant to the point you were trying to make. You are trying to say that other beings that God created -- angels -- can also be referred to as "sons of God", therefore a man God created -- Adam -- can be referred to that way.

However, the real problem with that argument is that nowhere in the Bible does it state that God created the angels. Yes, "heavenly beings" are mentioned, but their origin is never discussed.

As, I believe, J. Dwight Pentecost [or whomever] says: The Bible is literal, but It contains poetry; not the other way around.

What you really means is that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate in everything it says. That is what you mean by "literal". So you believe that the genealogy of Matthew is accurate -- those are the actual ancestors of Joseph. But that means you believe that Luke also lists the actual ancestors of Joseph. Since the 2 lists are completely different, that poses a problem for you: they can't both be accurate.

You tried to solve that problem by saying that one genealogiy is thru Mary and the other thru Joseph. But that isn't what the text says. So you just moved the inaccuracy of the text from the genealogies to where both Matthew and Luke say it is the genealogy of Joseph. Same problem, different place.

I am not addressing JP's points -- he can fend for himself; and frankly, I think he's doing a good job.

But what you are doing is inserting yourself into that conversation without keeping the context of the conversation. But that is not valid. The context comes with the conversation; the context doesn't end simply because you try to ignore it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but you are forgetting that "and".

Have a good day, Lucaspa.

I'm not going to be burdened by your speaking in tongues, ignorance of Hebrew poetry, and incessant but-what-you-mean-is statements.

If this is over your head, which it seems to be, then I'm wasting my time.

 

[nebulaJP]

It was common at that time to make up geneologies. Aeneus had a geneology going back to Apollo. Does that make Apollo a real god? In this case, there is a theological reason to make such a geneology: to tie the "father" of the Israelites back to the supposed first man.

So why are you trying to take Matthew's poetic phrasing and trying to turn Adam into a literal son?

It doesn't matter to me how Adam was brought into existence. I'm not trying to turn Adam into God's literal son because I don't believe Adam as a person literally existed. I'm saying that the Bible calls Adam God's son, just as Greco-Roman mythology calls Apollo's son (whatever his name was) "Apollo's son" and the first person (but second being) in the genealogy of Aeneus you referred to.

OK, God formed Adam from the dust in the ground and Apollo didn't produce his son in that way, instead Apollo impregnated a woman. So that simple difference makes the two Genealogies (that of Apollo to Aeneus and that of God to Jesus) completely incomparable, yes? If you don't want to say they're comparable anymore that's fine (it was you who made the comparison between the Aeneus and Jesus genealogies in the first place). The two genealogies seem comparable to me.

I made a post with a response to the Joseph comment but I don't know if you saw it:

Click the arrow above

 

[lucaspa]

Then skip the tongues and look at it from a Hebrew-poetry stance, and that should clarify it.

But this is not "complimentary Hebrew poetry". If you are going to use the "tongues" of Hebrew poetry, then you also have to use the "tongues" of the Hebrew words. Sorry, but you can't have one without the other. If the "Hebrew poetry stance" is going to use "morning stars" as synonymous with "angels" and be understood, then somewhere else we have to have "stars" be equated to angels. Otherwise, the only valid conclusion is that Job 38:7 is talking about 2 different things: stars seen in early morning and "sons of God".

In poetry, you can have compliments of sound (rhyme) and compliments of time (rhythm); but in Hebrew poetry, you have compliments of ideas.

Sometimes yes. You get that in "in the image". Elsewhere in literature of the time, "in the image" means "designated representative". That is complimentary to "dominion" in the rest of the verse. But to establish the complimentary ideas, you have to demonstrate that the words used mean those ideas. You haven't done that. All you have done is asserted that based on your desire. You need the evidence in this particular case.

Anyway, my point is, in this passage, an idea is stated, then restated using different terminology -- (yes, the KJV has a built-in dictionary).

It does? Where? Where is there a list of words and their meanings?

Anyway, as I pointed out, when you look at "stars" elsewhere in the OT, it never refers to angels. Instead, it always refers to stars in the sky. So, you need to give us some evidence -- other than your desire -- that stars here means angels instead of stars in the sky.
So, to put this together:

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Notice that the morning stars (angels) are the sons of God.

Nope. You have 2 different things: morning stars singing and sons of God shouting. If this is the same idea, why is one singing and the other shouting?

 

[lucaspa]

It doesn't matter to me how Adam was brought into existence.

Really? Then why are you trying so hard to make "the Bible" say this?

BTW, I really am curious as to how pantheism with an unconscious universe as god differs from atheism. What does an unconscious God do in "naturalistic pantheism"?

I'm not trying to turn Adam into God's literal son because I don't believe Adam as a person literally existed. I'm saying that the Bible calls Adam God's son, just as Greco-Roman mythology calls Apollo's son (whatever his name was) "Apollo's son" and the first person (but second being) in the genealogy of Aeneus you referred to.

Matthew calls Adam "son of God". We're talking about the gospel of Matthew.

A separate issue, which I am arguing, is that Matthew made a mistake here. By common usage, Adam is not "God's son" in the way that Aeneus is Apollo's son. Instead, Adam is God's creation.

So, why did Matthew make the mistake? What's the theological purpose of stating this even tho it is not literally correct?

OK, God formed Adam from the dust in the ground and Apollo didn't produce his son in that way, instead Apollo impregnated a woman. So that simple difference makes the two Genealogies (that of Apollo to Aeneus and that of God to Jesus) completely incomparable, yes? If you don't want to say they're comparable anymore that's fine (it was you who made the comparison between the Aeneus and Jesus genealogies in the first place). The two genealogies seem comparable to me.

The original claim was that a literal Adam was necessary for Christianity to be valid. As "proof" of that claim, the genealogy in Matthew was put forth: Matthew thought there was a literal Adam. What I claimed was that having a genealogy back to Yahweh doesn't make Yahweh real anymore than having a genealogy of Aeneus back to Apollo doesn't make Apollo real. The genealogy is separate from the question of the existence of God. Therefore Adam mentioned in a genealogy of Jesus doesn't make a literal Adam necessary for Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

Lastly, some, from as early as John of Damascus, view “as was supposed of Joseph” as a parenthetical note, with Luke actually calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning, it is then suggested, that Heli (Ηλι, Heli) is the maternal grandfather of Jesus, and Luke is actually tracing the ancestry of Jesus according to the flesh through Mary.[14] Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli".

You need to provide a link to that Wiki article, since I can't find it using your description.

That's a convoluted apologetic, demanding reading a lot into the text: starting with the desire of the reader. The best new translation of the Greek is:
"Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli. "

In any of the translations, we always see that Joseph was the son of Heli. If Luke really wanted to trace the line thru Mary, shouldn't he have said "Mary daughter of Heli"? Or, instead of omitting "son", used the Greek word for "son-in-law"? Is there such a word, or can a phrase be constructed meaning "son-in-law"?

 

[AV1611VET]

But this is not "complimentary Hebrew poetry".

Excuse me, but yes it is.

If you are going to use the "tongues" of Hebrew poetry, then you also have to use the "tongues" of the Hebrew words.

I don't use the tongues of the Hebrew poetry, I use the tongues of English; I'm KJVO, remember?

Sorry, but you can't have one without the other.

God says otherwise.

Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

It wouldn't make sense to publish the Gospel in foreign tongues, would it?

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

If the "Hebrew poetry stance" is going to use "morning stars" as synonymous with "angels" and be understood, then somewhere else we have to have "stars" be equated to angels.

Not necessarily.

How about being logical about this? theo-logical, that is -- as I shall demonstrate:

Otherwise, the only valid conclusion is that Job 38:7 is talking about 2 different things: stars seen in early morning and "sons of God".

Except now we have a major problem, don't we?

The passage is clearly talking about God 'laying the corner stone of the earth'.

Here it is again:

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The 'stars seen in early morning' did not exist yet, did they?

And since they 'shouted for joy', then this leaves only one conclusion: they are the angels.